Readers of two powers material of course know the arguments for seeing both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man as distinct deity figures. It is core to the two powers idea. My dissertation traced this back to the El-Baal co-regency of Ugarit.
I offer here another take on that, where the same conclusion is made, but from a different wellspring of ancient Near Eastern material. The author is one of my favorites, Julian Morgenstern, whose thoughts on Israelite religion are always provocative. I’m not sure I buy his angle here, but his work is testimony that even “way back” in 1961 there was a scholar not of the evangelical Christian flavor who saw clearly that the Son of Man was a deity figure. It would be nice if NT scholars paid attention to Israelite religion. Instead they want to explain away the “son of man” language as hardly indicative of any theological significance. That’s what you get when you ignore 3/4 of your Bible and its ancient Near Eastern context.
May 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
The Father and Jesus in the NT are reminiscent of Daniel 7v13 but even more parallel to the Tyrian gods (unity of god) of Ba’al Shamem and Melcarth?? Yeah right!
And is it true that verses 13 and 14 are interpolations? Is there solid textual evidence to show this or is it more interpretive on the sole basis that verses 13 and 14 do not seem to follow the remainder of chapter 7 where the Ancient of days appears to continue ruling and the saints obtaining the kingdom as if it contradicts vvs 13 and 14 where it is the “Bar Anash” that obtains the kingdom?
Anyhow, the NT is already established and the book of revelation seem more consistent with the OT as it relates to the saints and the son of man (Jesus) in Daniel much more than this Tyrian god cycle of Baal Shemem and Melcarth; not that it did not have any influence in the OT texts as well pseudepigraphic texts like Enoch and Ezra. The Ba’al cycle of Ugarit makes far more sense, but again, this does not mean that the Tyrian god cycle did not have any influence or that it did not impact the Israelite’s conception of Yahweh somehow.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@blop2008: The point (MY point in posting this) isn’t the legitimacy of a comparison between the Father and Son of Christianity. In fact, Daniel 7 doesn’t use the terms “father” and “son” and does not have the Ancient of Days as the father of the son of man. Rather, the point is that there are certain aspects of the portrayal of this scene that to ANY ancient person (including pagans) Daniel 7’s scene would have suggested TWO deity figures, not just one. In other words, to think in such terms CANNOT be said to be a later Christian contrivance.
May 11th, 2009 at 7:39 am
I understand Mike that the primary purpose of this (for our discussion here in this Blog) is to show that even prior to Christianity existed through Jesus and the disciples, a two powers ideaology was already set due to the Word and Wisdom personifications (or anthropomorphism), the Shekinah, the angel of the Lord in some instances and the Son of Man in Daniel 7. Thus it could not have been a “Christian” (as if christianity was completely seperated from Judaism) contrivance.
But, what I meant to say is that this author (although an old article) is using the tyrian textual evidence rather than the Baal cycle from Ugarit, and he says that the NT is reminiscent of Daniel 7 “…but even more parallel to the Tyrian gods (unity of god) of Ba’al Shamem and Melcarth”. I find it does not follow.
Before Christ appeared how was Daniel 7 explained away is the main issue, right? Was it Enoch, was it David (somehow) was it Israel etc… But this entails only if Daniel 7 13 and 14 are interpolations that did not exist that a certain period of time. And so my question ” Are verses 13 and 14 really interpolations and if so, when were they interpolated “?
May 11th, 2009 at 9:40 am
@blop2008: Agreed with you on paragraph 2 assertion.
I’m unclear on your question in the third paragraph. The way I’m reading it, I don’t see why a Jewish (pre-Christ) audience could *only* feel the need to explain away the deity son of man in vv. 13-14 were interpolations (?). I have some detailed textual commentaries on Daniel, and none of them suggest vv. 13-14 might be interpolations (or quote anyone who says so). The most they do is talk about interpolations with respect to the beast visions (cf. LaCocque).
May 12th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Julian Morgenstern suggested in this 1961 article that vvs 13-14 might be interpolations because the son of man that obtains power, dominion, and kingdom does not match the later vvs where the Ancient of days apparently still reigns as if he did not hand over the power/authority/kingdom to the son of man and that the power/authority/kingdom ultimately goes to the saints. So, if vss 13-14 were interpolated sometime B.C. and if pre-Christ Jewish groups had problems explaining/understanding these “Two Powers” verses (vss 13-14) after the interpolation than, it so happened only because of the interpolation and not because vss 13-14 are orginal.
But…as you confirm vss 13-14 are most likely not interpolations and are original; rather, the vision of the Beasts most likely are an interpolation (which now makes far more sense).
We know that the Son of Man is Christ as seen in the book of Revelation along with the saints and matches the apparent problems that Julian mentions about vss 13-14 with the rest of Daniel 7. Under the providence of God, Revelation and Daniel matche up together (maybe not every single detail), but pre-Christ Jewish individuals would wonder who this Son of Man is in Daniel 7.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
@blop2008: When it comes to who is reigning, Morgenstern missed something (or chose to ignore it). It is true that in v. 18 the “saints of the most high” receive the kingdom. Does that mean it’s an either-or reign? No. In v. 22 the text says again that the saints of the most high are given the “judgment” (implied rule) and that they possess the kingdom. These saints are divine beings - divine council members — not people — and the divine council is subordinate to the lord of the council — in Daniel 7, the ancient of days. The kingdom is shared with people in v. (”people of the saints of the most high”), but then comes what is missed. Verse 27 ends with the comment that [very literal rendering of the Aramaic here]: “all dominions shall render service and hearken to HIM [Aramaic third SINGULAR pronoun].” If we take the singular pronoun here as semantically singular, then we are actually back to the son of man reigning. The full picture would be that the council host and the people loyal to the host of heaven under the Ancient of Days derive their authority from the son of man, to whom the council and the Ancient of Days gave power earlier in the passage. The son of man never relinquishes the reign he is given, nor does he lose it. Anyone paying much attention to the rule of God since Eden (mediated through humans, who are often under ONE quasi-divine figure — the one on whom the Spirit rests, or who is allowed to enter the theophany-space) would see there is no need for interpolation here. The symbiotic rule of God, his council, and a deity-human king is quite consistent and found in earlier material.
All that said, one COULD argue that the singular pronoun can be translated plural (”them”). That is possible since pronouns are notoriously elastic (but would the “them” really exclude the son of man?).
May 14th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Thanks for the clarification Mike. That the sons of God of the council are in the text is what I missed, I thought the saints or holy ones were the people as per Revelation, but really missed the obvious that the holy ones here is the divine council. In Revelation all three (1) God The Father / Jesus (2) the council saints (3) the redeemed people are present in the picture. That’s what the text says, It makes perfect sense, and it matches Revelation. Once again thanks for the clarification.
At the end of verse 7 when it says to “him”, I thought it refered back to the Most High, but then it’s a nice little detail to point out that it may indeed (most certainly) refer back to the Son of Man. No Interpolation here; all is coherent. We can see that the people of the Holy Ones is reminiscent - I now think - of the table of nations - 70 Nations (per se) and 70 Sons of God/Council members.
Now:
This got me thinking about something else and here’s a question for you:
Who do you think the elders are in Revelation?
May 19th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@blop2008: You may not want to know.
I think the 24 elders is a metaphor that is astral in nature, and which points to the divine council (divine beings = stars in the ancient worldview), which is composed of both Jew and Gentile (12 tribes, 12 apostles). In other words, the council is both human and divine (divine non-human beings and divinized human beings) as was the original Edenic intent (the number picks up the Israel+Church idea; the astral nature of the scene picks up the divine component. In my view the 24 elders are an astral phenomena - as are the four living creatures at the throne - note that there are “eyes” in them - “eyes” = a Greco-Roman description of stars - animals with stars in them = constellations). I think Revelation has a lot of the genre called “astral prophecy” in it (the elders merges Daniel and Ezekiel throne room imagery, and Ezekiel is clearly astral — the four faces on the cherubim = the four cardinal points of the Babylonian zodiac — I don’t think that’s accidental). One scholar, B. Malina, has done a lot of work here, but I think he goes overboard with it (to the exclusion of the use of the OT in Revelation).
May 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Well, I also think that the 24 elders is a composition of 12 tribes and 12 apostles as well due to its description in Revelation and given the thought that I cannot see how else the 24 elders can be parsed. I think this is the “majority” view but I haven’t read much articles or commentaries on this subject. So many ANE scholars must agree amongst themselves that when God put Adam in the garden in Eden, it was for him to be part of the council, in connection with the heavenly thrones - So in Heaven, So on Earth..sort of reasoning. Adam was supposed to oversee (as God’s image on earth), rule and (judge?) all living creatures. Now, Adam failed, we all failed ultimately, and in the end, the Son of Man will establish his kingdom on earth (if we understand the biblical passages about the ruling King in the kingdom as so) and rule in full justice and glory as Adam was ordain to.
I think it makes sense in light of the scriptures, ANE material and Astral-type studies (Astrology in a loose sense). Thanks for the response.